I don't get the dislike of alignment as a character-building concept

[innerdude]

I may be in the minority, but I have always gravitated to the concept of alignment, even from my earliest days as a kid playing Mentzer Red Box/BECMI.

It's obviously an inexact, "broad brush" way of containing basic character "world views" and personas, and I can certainly understand some players'/GMs' complaints that it "feels restrictive" or even unnecessary.

"Why should my character be forced to follow some arbitrary behavioral guideline, especially one that often has mechanical consequences for or against me (i.e., to-hit and damage bonuses with alignment spells, damage reduction types, detection, etc.)?"

"Why can't I just have them act the way I want them to?"

But having done a lot of semi-professional and university theater, the basic functional premise of alignment falls right in line with many general principles of "characterization" in acting--determining motive, objectives, relationship tactics, and responses.

One of the things they hammer home in acting classes is that people are generally emotionally consistent. We don't always "get" where people are coming from, but when we do, it's generally from a consistent place, shaped by their innate nature and experience. Characters that are portrayed without that consistency are often viewed by audiences as mentally and emotionally unstable.

As inelegant as D&D's longstanding alignment mechanic can be, as a GM/player who's vastly more interested in character, plot, and world exploration than combat, I actually like the "shorthand" rendering of alignment in a lot of ways, particularly as a starting point for "getting to know" or "feeling out" a particular character's viewpoint, as expressed by the player.

For a game like D&D that has a huge rules emphasis on combat, I'm all for ANYTHING that gives the player a chance to pause and go, "Hmm, what IS my character actually like?" Not that they necessarily have to go into huge background details (though I love that sort of thing), but I like the fact that it DOES PROVIDE SOMETHING in terms of a starting point.

To me, if a player or GM is one to "gloss over" that aspect of their character(s), to me it's an immediate red flag that the focus and style of the game being run is probably not going to be one to my taste.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying alignment is perfect, or even a necessary element of every RPG. I'm certain some groups play D&D, or anything else for that matter, in highly satisfying ways while paying little to no attention to an "alignment" trope.

What I am saying, however, is that its place in D&D--especially when D&D is considered the "gateway" RPG--is an overall benefit to the system, because it gives a quick, succinct, immediately recognizable way for players to mentally map an avatar's "ethos."

And to me, that mental map is one of the crucial points that separates RPGs from tactical battle games.

 

[Pentius]

Something about these lines:

It's obviously an inexact, "broad brush" way of containing basic character "world views" and personas, and I can certainly understand some players'/GMs' complaints that it "feels restrictive" or even unnecessary.

"Why should my character be forced to follow some arbitrary behavioral guideline, especially one that often has mechanical consequences for or against me (i.e., to-hit and damage bonuses with alignment spells, damage reduction types, detection, etc.)?"

"Why can't I just have them act the way I want them to?"

Makes me think that you aren't really making a distinction between Alignment: The Character Concept and Alignment: The Mechanics. I think it's a very important distinction to make, though, as the majority of anti-alignment complaints I've seen(and made) are specifically with the mechanics.

I'm fine with Alignment: The Character Concept. It has some flaws, but in general it's good to think about your character's outlook on life, and it's also good to recognize that not all good and evil comes in the same forms.

Alignment: The Mechanics are a whole different beast, though. That's where most of the restriction and punishment complaints come in. Having a clear view of your character's outlook isn't a problem until someone else comes along and wants to derail a game to argue about how lawful or chaotic a given action was, or wants to revoke half your class for not fitting their differing view of the concepts in play.

 

[ACreepierFolklaw]

For me with an interest in criminal profiling and developing characters for the screen I feel that on one level you are right, that people are generally emotionally consistent and the best indicator of future responses is past ones. But evil/good? Its too judgemental and contains such assumptions about how the world (even fictional ones) works that I just find it unworkable.

Evil for evil's sake is just nonsense, so is good for goods sake for that matter. people (in real life) tend to follow a continuum that is more personalised, by which I mean what they consider to be a good situation or bad situation is judged by a particular criterion, they will opt for a choice that they feel is more likely to result in the situation they feel to be good, and will flee from those they believe to be bad. This is a more complex yet simple alignment form that I use in my games (only for NPCs).

For example, an NPC I have possesses the alignment of ridicule<->recognition, this means given any choice he will try for recognition over ridicule, so sometimes he may do evil to avoid ridicule, sometimes do good to gain recognition and vice versa.
Any choice he is given he will weigh up the options in terms of ridicule<->recognition. Of course my NPC’s alignment is never made known to the players except through the evidence of the NPCs actions. Sensing evil etc is off the cards as everyone is light and dark, yin/yang. All characters are capable of almost anything when backed into a metaphorical corner; the NPC would rather death than ridicule, rather kill others to get recognition if it was the only way, but also capable of great deeds… the goodness or badness is to be judged by someone else.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Even though my favorite system of all time is HERO, the D&D alignment system was one of the things I felt set it apart from other FRPGs, and its recent downgrade in 4ED's design is, IMHO, a loss.

To be 100% clear, I don't think alignment systems are inherently superior- see my comment Re: HERO, above- but I thought D&D's system was one of the better ones, and helped distinguish the game from other quality FRPGs. It was a strength.

 

[Hussar]

I agree with Pentius on this. Alignment as a means of distinguishing your character isn't a bad place to start. It can turn into something of a wank, but, usually it works out ok.

However, so many of the mechanics of alignment are prone to such heated disagreements at the table. Whether it's the perennial Paladin problem perpetrated upon presupositions pertaining to the possible motivations of purpose, or the every favorite cry of "Your character wouldn't do that" that has plagued the game for many years, I really doubt there are is another mechanic that has caused as many problems at the table as alignment.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I think alignment is one of those aspects of the game that should be made optional. I feel that alignment highly campaign-specific and the alignment mechanics used should match the feel of the campaign world.

For example, a campaign with a Lord of the Rings feel would use Good/Neutral/Evil. A campaign emulating Moorcock's Eternal Champion series would use Law/Neutral (Balance)/Chaos. A campaign set in a world similar to Howard's Conan stories wouldn't use alignment at all.

Having alignment mechanics as an optional rules layer would give DMs more options when creating a campaign world.

 

[innerdude]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm fully on board with the "Alignment Mechanics" being problematic.

There's A LOT of judgement calls about character/NPC actions that are built right into the rules that, as Hussar, Folklaw, and Pentius point out, are rife with opportunity for abuse and general un-fun.

As far as your comment on nuance, though, ACreepierFolklaw, I don't think the 9-grid system as presented in D&D is wholly unable to work with those sorts of things either. I think alignment is trying to, in an extremely "hack" way, model a sense of philosophy behind the perspectives you mention.

Every human being has elements of self-interest, and elements of selflessness ingrained to us. Recognition/ridicule, praise/blame, motivation/demotivation are all aspects of that continuum. Many of us have self-interested motivations, without letting those motivations harm other individuals. I think the alignment system is an (admittedly crude) attempt to map points along that underlying spectrum--how far do we let our innate, natural self-interest go before we reign it in?

 

[amerigoV]

I never had any problems with the Alignment system once people got past "Lawful Stupid" and the CN was "do anything you want". Its a very identifiable D&Dism.

That said, I have found that systems using Hindrances/Drawback work much better to define personality (ala Savage Worlds, Cortex, etc). Having just come back from a Con, it was amazing to see how quickly people were able to get into their (preGen) character with concepts like Greedy, Heroic, Arrogant, Outsider, Quirk, Cautious, Curious, etc versus "Neutral Good" or "Chaotic Neutral".

 

[Vascant]

I think any group that has players complaining about how another players actions didn't follow their alignment, probably has other issues as well.

These are issues for the DM to handle and figure out how he wants to handle them nor does it require a table discussion (At best perhaps a side discussion with that specific player). Most classes this won't matter but to some it could have some consequences and repercussions. I also maintain the table this way because then if a player is charmed and doing something a bit out of the normal for that char, it could serve as the first sign something is wrong and not as the spark for a OOC arguement.

 

[Elf Witch]

I like the alignment system I think it helps guide players with their characters.

I don't believe it should be a straight jacket though one chaotic act does not make a lawful person chaotic. Just like one evil act does not make a good person evil or vice versa.

With paladins I do believe that they need to be held to a higher calling and have to atone for major violations. With paladins I think the DM and the player need to sit down and work out a code of contact that the paladin follows. Doing that has always prevented in my games any of the issues that I read about online in other games.

One of my table rules is that players don't get to tell other players how to play their characters and they may not judge if another players is not playing their alignment correctly. If the player has question for me about his alignment it is between DM and player the others at the table are basically told to stay out of it.

If I am asked why I don't agree with them I will explain my reasons but I refuse to debate it. As DM I am the final judge on alignment in my games.

I even use alignment in games that don't have them as guide to character creation. For example in Shadowrun I ask my players to consider if they are good, evil, neutral. How I define those is like this good tries not kill the runner is just trying to survive and make a living. While they willing break the law on runs they don't live their life that way for example they don't steal something they can pay for.

Neutral is what most people choose. They will kill if it is part of the job but they don't go out of the way to kill. They are not wanton lawbreakers but they don't respect the law and will break it if its in their way.

Evil is simply a sociopath they kill without remorse. They are above the law. They may enjoy killing and hurting things.